Ministers get ready to go for green-belt grab

homelessskilledworker

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/ministers-get-ready-to-go-for-greenbelt-grab-8081392.html



Building on green belt land around towns and cities will "irreversibly damage the countryside" yet fail to deliver the Government's hoped-for economic growth, the former poet laureate Sir Andrew Motion warns today, as ministers face charges that they are ignoring the needs of Britain's rural communities.

So desperate is the Treasury in its search for growth that George Osborne is said to want to redesignate protected land to kickstart large-scale housing schemes. Developers wanting to build on protected sites would have to provide new "green belt"

homelessskilledworker

If I was to get my hands on a good bit of cheap land(but not given away) on the understanding that I build what I hope is heavily regulated good quality new build. I would in a heartbeat part with just short of £100,000k in my own savings, I have also ploughed a good deal into my pension which I would be more than happy to use to secure even more cash on my new home.

Now there are a quite a few of you know my views on housing and the costs at the moment in recent times:)
If I am willing to invest in this with everything I own, imagine if you multplied this by one million, half the homes that are probably needed. We would in an instant be out of recession and well into growth.

And secondly I am a great lover of the countryside myself, if the homes built were given a lot more creative thought then I see no reason why this has to badly effect any village.

michaels

I'm all in favour of this but I think it needs to be done fairly - ie if a piece of land (like the bit discussed on another thread earlier) goes from being worth £10k/acre to £1m / acre then the public as a whole should receive this benefit not the lucky land owner.

chewmylegoff

michaels wrote: »

I'm all in favour of this but I think it needs to be done fairly - ie if a piece of land (like the bit discussed on another thread earlier) goes from being worth £10k/acre to £1m / acre then the public as a whole should receive this benefit not the lucky land owner.

why? we don't redistribute the increase in value of other assets. e.g. if you own a share and it quadruples in value, the govt doesn't come along and confiscate it and say "sorry old chum, but we need to share this windfall with the public as a whole", because we are not a communist state.

if someone owns some land, why should someone else get the benefit of its increase in value?

michaels

But neither do we give away North Sea oil for free.

What about all the land to be freed for building is compulsory purchased at its 'no planning permission' value and then sold back to developers at its with planning permission value. Otherwise it is basically just a huge gift to a bunch of lucky farmers which I would consider unfair.

A._Badger

michaels wrote: »

But neither do we give away North Sea oil for free.

What about all the land to be freed for building is compulsory purchased at its 'no planning permission' value and then sold back to developers at its with planning permission value. Otherwise it is basically just a huge gift to a bunch of lucky farmers which I would consider unfair.

What, essentially, is the difference between land and any other commodity? Why not apply the same 'it's not fair' to houses, businesses, antiques, savings, or any other asset?

The collectivism around this place gets quite scary some days.

chewmylegoff

But with drilling rights the govt is selling something which it already owns, for its market value. What you propose is the government forcibly taking private property away from people and retaining the benefit of the uplift in value of that property for themselves. We already have a system for making sure that "the public" benefit from the gains of others - it's called taxation. I don't see why we would suddely tax farmers 100% in this very specific scenario, and not do the same for other scenarios.

If we start confiscating the gains from private property then where do we stop? Do you deserve to keep any gains from the price of your house inflating? It's not like you did anything, you just bought it and sat in it. What next? Dave from Norwich bought a euromillions ticket and won. Lucky him? No, lucky us because we are confiscating it - it's not fair that he should get to keep it as he only risked £2.

If a farmer owns some land, and the land becomes worth more because of a change in government policy, then the farmer should get to keep the gain. it would be unfair to use any other system, unless we make sure that the farmer also receives a share of any other profits similarly deemed to be "unfairly generated".

michaels

So the last landowner on the proposed high speed rail link should be allowed to hold out for whatever price they wanted (as that last piece to complete the link will obviously be very valuable)?

A._Badger

michaels wrote: »

So the last landowner on the proposed high speed rail link should be allowed to hold out for whatever price they wanted (as that last piece to complete the link will obviously be very valuable)?

That isn't how it works. His land will be compulsorily purchased but he will not have to pay punitive tax on the price he receives, which was what was being suggested.

General building land is, in any case, a separate matter, not usually subject to compulsory purchase orders (thank God).

chewmylegoff

michaels wrote: »

So the last landowner on the proposed high speed rail link should be allowed to hold out for whatever price they wanted (as that last piece to complete the link will obviously be very valuable)?

if the govt decided to forcibly purchase land from farmers to build houses i wouldn't have a problem with that (although as a badger suggests above, compulsory purchase may not apply in that scenario anyway, i don't know) but if they did do that then the price the govt pays should be calculated with reference to what land for building on is worth.

i doubt you would be too pleased if the govt came along and forced you to sell your garden to the govt for £2k, then built a house on it and sold it for half a million quid!!

michaels

Which is what I am suggesting - happy for the farmer to be paid what his 'farm' land is worth and extra for hassle and inconvenience but I don't see why he should benefit from the change in the rules for which surely everyone in the country should benefit equally - after all we will all lose some of the benefit of having so much green belt.

A._Badger wrote: »

That isn't how it works. His land will be compulsorily purchased but he will not have to pay punitive tax on the price he receives, which was what was being suggested.

General building land is, in any case, a separate matter, not usually subject to compulsory purchase orders (thank God).